Apple Must Publish Notice Samsung Didn’t Copy IPad In U.K.

This is not a disjunctive syllogism.<p>If Apple could not prove that Samsung copied them, it does not follow that Samsung didn't copy them, just as if California couldn't prove that OJ did it, it doesn't follow that he didn't do it.<p>This ruling, that Apple has to affirm something equally unproven, is bizarre.

Wasn't the original ruling basically saying, "It's not a copy of the iPad because it's not as cool"? You know if Apple really does have to put this notice on their website, they'll probably find a way to work that into the announcement.

Sounds fair, considering.<p>Apple's suit damaged Samsung, so this seems to me like fair payback.

This is very good because it will make companies think twice before going to court.

This reminds of a kid who got totally destroyed in a fight: both eyes are swollen and black, his nose is broken and bleeding, he can barely talk through his swollen lip, and he has a chipped tooth. Then the teacher tells the other guy to apologize and shake your hand. You walk away thinking, "I showed him ..."

Can someone more versed with the British legal system explain the logic behind this? Coming from the perspective of an American it is a bit peculiar, but then again our own legal system isn't always rational. Just curious if this is common for a defendent to have to publish notices of case outcomes. I know there are a number of other consumer protection laws in the UK.<p>That or pointing to something like popehat that has overall analysis would be nice too. Law stories tend to make me feel like I'm a fish out of water, especially when they are from other countries. Given that I know a contract lawyer and have finally gotten to a basic understanding of how some of that law works I have a bit more understanding of how common perception of the law differs from actual practice.

I love this judge - putting everyone back to their place. Samsung, stop trying to act cool, and Apple, STFU.

There is a sense of justice here. They had this coming ever since Apple blatantly doctored those photos to make it seem the Samsung product look more like the Apple product than it really was, as if implying that they thought tech market was so incompetent that such a strategy could work.

I don't understand how anyone can root for Samsung given Korean chaebol's long history of blatantly ripping off everything. Any research into the history of Samsung, Daewoo, LG will reveal a long line if copied products. Of course most if these products were only sold within Korea specifically because they knew what try we're doing would never pass muster on the international stage. Samsung is a dirty company. Do a little research before just blindly assuming Apple did something wrong. Looking at the side-by-side images here: <a href="http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-galaxy-injunction" rel="nofollow">http://atomicsupersky.com/post/26275796849/on-the-samsung-ga...</a> should erase any doubt that Samsung blatantly ripped off Apple.

I can't wait to see just how much legalese and slanty writing they manage to include in the notice.<p>Unless the Judge gives them the text, or requires them to negotiate it with Samsung.

Actually, nothing stops Apple from being passive aggressive: <a href="http://cl.ly/image/2C132X1u363x" rel="nofollow">http://cl.ly/image/2C132X1u363x</a>

Where would one put such a thing on one's website?<p>The very top page for six months?<p>As an aside, if Apple were to pronounce such a claim on it's website, what would that do to ongoing battles in other jurisdictions?

Does this ruling actually mean anything? Every time I see something like this I'm just waiting for an appeal to pop up. Or can this judgement not be appealed?

Off-hand this seems like a rather cruel and unusual punishment. Are there any previous examples of this sort of order?